Transcription

1 Universities and the Success of Entrepreneurial Ventures: Evidence from the Small Business Innovation Research Program Professor Donald S. Siegel Dean-School of Business University at Albany, SUNY 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, NY Tel: (518) Fax: (518) Dr. Charles Wessner Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW FO2014 Washington, D.C Third Draft March 2009 Paper presented at Texas Tech University, April 1, 2009 and the April 2009 UNC-Chapel Hill Conference on The Larger Role of the University in Economic Development, the July 2007 Cornell/McGill Conference on Institutions and Entrepreneurship, the December 2008 Israel Strategy Conference at Hebrew University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, February Disclaimer: These findings are preliminary and do not reflect the official views of the National Academy of Sciences. Please do not quote without the permission of the coauthors. 1

2 Universities and the Success of Entrepreneurial Ventures: Evidence from the Small Business Innovation Research Program Abstract There has been little direct, systematic empirical analysis of the role that universities play in enhancing the success of entrepreneurial ventures. We attempt to fill this gap by analyzing data from the SBIR program, a set-aside program that requires key federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense) to allocate 2.5 percent of their research budget to small firms that attempt to commercialize new technologies. Based on estimation of Tobit and negative binomial regressions of the determinants of commercial success, we find that start-ups with closer ties to universities achieve higher levels of performance. Keywords: University Technology Transfer, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), commercialization, entrepreneurship JEL Codes: M13, O31, O32, O38 2

3 I. Background In the aftermath of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, there was a rapid rise in technology transfer from U.S. universities to firms through such mechanisms as patenting, licensing agreements, research joint ventures, and university-based startups. Universities have welcomed this trend because they perceive that technology commercialization can potentially generate large sums of revenue and create new firms and jobs in the local region. Many cities and regions are increasingly viewing universities as potential engines of economic growth. In recent years, universities have been placing a stronger emphasis on the entrepreneurial dimension of technology commercialization, which has lead to a substantial increase in the number of university-based startups. This trend has spawned numerous studies on the managerial and policy implications of these ventures and their role in technology transfer (see Siegel and Phan, 2005) for a comprehensive review of this burgeoning literature). Many of these studies have focused on institutions that have emerged to facilitate commercialization of the startup s innovation(s), such as university technology transfer offices, science parks, and incubators. Another strand of this literature focuses more directly on the agents involved in university technology transfer, such as scientists Zucker and Darby (1996, 2001) (academic entrepreneurs (Audretsch, 2000; Louis et al., 1989). These papers build on the theoretical analysis of Jensen and Thursby (2001), who demonstrate that inventor involvement in technology commercialization potentially attenuates the deleterious effects of informational asymmetries that naturally arise in technological diffusion from universities to firms. 3

4 Unfortunately, there has been little direct, systematic empirical analysis of the role that universities play in enhancing the success of entrepreneurial ventures. Most researchers (e.g., DiGregorio and Shane, 2003; O Shea, Allen, and Arnaud, 2005) address this issue by estimating regressions of counts of the number of university-based startups. The unit of observation in such studies is typically the university. 1 The use of numerical startup counts at the university level is problematic for three reasons. First, startup counts are only one metric by which to gauge the extent of academic entrepreneurship at a university. Second, it is also not clear how well this approach measures the market value or outcomes of such activity. Finally, the proper unit of analysis is not the university, but rather the university-based startup, which should be followed over time to determine whether it is successful. To address these concerns, we have constructed a rich and unique database that allows for a significant advance in empirical analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of academic entrepreneurship. Our maintained hypothesis is that an academic founder is an entrepreneurial leader, whose background affects the firm s success. In addition to information on founders, our dataset includes several direct measures of the commercial success of entrepreneurial ventures, including actual sales of products, processes, and services, expectations of future sales, domestic and foreign agreements, and job creation. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the following section, we describe the Small Business Innovation Research (henceforth, SBIR) Program and the resulting dataset from our survey of awardees. Section III presents a brief review of two related literatures that provide a motivation for our empirical analysis. We then outline 1 Some researchers have used the firm as the unit of observation. However, these studies have been based on startups from a single university (e.g., Shane (2002)). 4

5 the econometric framework, while simultaneously providing a theoretical justification for the arguments of these equations. Specifically, we wish to test several hypotheses relating to the role of universities and academics in enhancing the probability of startup success. Section IV contains preliminary empirical findings. The final section presents caveats and preliminary conclusions. II. SBIR Program and the Database Our empirical analysis is based on project-level data from a key federal government program designed to provide financial assistance to firms during the initial stages of their development: the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The SBIR was established in 1982 as a set-aside program. In its current version, SBIR requires all federal R&D funding agencies with extramural research programs to allocate 2.5 percent of their extramural research budgets to fund through a peer-review process R&D in small (less than 500 employees) firms and organizations. SBIR awards consist of three phases. Phase I awards fund the firm to undertake proof of concept, that is to research the feasibility and technical merit of a proposed research project. A Phase I award lasts for six months and is less than $75,000. Phase II awards extend the proof of concept to a technological product/process that has a commercial application. A Phase II Award is granted to only the most promising of the Phase I projects based on scientific/technical promise, the expected value to the funding agency, the firm s research capability, and the commercial potential of the resulting innovation. The duration of the award is a maximum of 24 months and generally does not exceed $750,000. Approximately 40 percent of the Phase I Awards continue on to 5

6 Phase II. Phase III involves private funding to the firm for the commercial application of a technology; no financial award from SBIR is made in Phase III. The SBIR database that we analyze in this study was constructed by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of Congress for the broader purpose of assessing the net social benefits of the SBIR program. In 2005, an electronic survey was administered to a random and stratified sample of firms that were granted Phase II awards from 1992 through 2001 from the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. More specifically, an electronic survey was sent to 2,652 identifiable firms that received a Phase II SBIR award. Each firm was asked to respond to one or more surveys specific to a funded project. The total number of projects associated with the 2,652 surveyed firms was 6,415. A total of 1,239 firms responded to the survey, each completing one or more project-specific surveys. The total number of projects associated with the 1,239 responding firms was 1,916. Thus, the firm response rate was percent and the project response rate was percent. Specifically, the database contains information on numerous performance/commercialization indicators of success of the Phase II project, such as: Sales to date of products, processes, and services from the project, to organizations in what sectors, and how soon after completion of Phase II were sales made Expected future sales, New employees hired as a result of the SBIR project Patents applied for/received Copyrights applied for/received Trademarks applied for/received Domestic/international licensing agreements 6

7 The database also contains information on the characteristics and activities of the founders of these companies, including their gender, entrepreneurial experience, and professional background. In addition, we know whether the founders, whom we conjecture are the entrepreneurial leaders of the firm, have a business or academic background and where the founders were employed before they established their firms. And finally, we have information on whether university faculty members are involved in the funded project. This study is part of the first systematic empirical investigation of the SBIR program across federal agencies (see Audretsch, Link and Scott, 2002; Lerner (1999) for limited analysis of fast track SBIR projects at the Department of Defense). As members of the National Academy of Sciences research team, we have access to these data. III. Brief Literature Review and Methodology Given that our objective is to explain the success of entrepreneurial ventures, two streams of research are relevant. In recent years, several authors have assessed the relationship between certain human capital characteristics and industry experience of the founders of high-technology start-up companies and subsequent performance of these firms (see Colombo and Grilli (2005), Vyakarnam and Hankelberg (2005), Gilbert, McDougall, and Audretsch (2006), Siegel and Shrader (2007)). Some papers focus on the traits of company founders, while others examine the characteristics of the top management teams of entrepreneurial firms. Most authors report strong positive links between these traits and characteristics, such as the level of education, functional expertise, and industry experience of the founder or members of the 7

8 top management team, and indicators of new venture performance (e.g., sales growth or the creation of new products) As noted in Vyakarnam and Hankelberg (2005), this connection appears to be stronger in high-technology industries, where firms operate under high-velocity or turbulent conditions (see Eisenhardt and Schoonhoven (1990), Finkelstein and Hambrick (1990), and Wiersema and Bantel (1992)). More specifically, Shrader and Siegel (2007) analyze the role of human capital in the growth and development of 198 new technology-based ventures. Their results imply that the fit between strategy and team experience is a key determinant of the long-term performance of these high-tech entrepreneurial firms. These findings demonstrate the importance for technology-based new ventures to select strategies for which they possess the human capital to successfully execute. A related literature focuses more directly on university spinoffs and academic entrepreneurship (Rotharemel, Agung, and Jiang (2007)). This literature is evolving rapidly and there are several papers that present evidence for a positive relationship between university/faculty involvement and commercialization outcomes (e.g., Shane (2002) and Shane and Stuart (2002), and Lacetera (2007)). To assess the determinants of successful SBIR research projects, we estimate the following econometric model: (1) SUCCESS = f(x) where SUCCESS refers to the seven indicators of project success mentioned earlier: (1) actual sales (ACTSALES), (2) expected sales (EXPSALES), (3) new employees (NEWEMP), (4) patents received (PATENTS), (5) copyrights received (COPYRIGHTS), (6) trademarks received (TRADEMARKS), and (7) licensing agreement consummated 8

9 (LICENSES). X is a vector of project, firm, and founder-specific characteristics. Given that our unit of analysis is the project, we will also allow for firm effects (since many firms in the sample have multiple projects) and agency effects (in subsequent research where we included data from multiple agencies). We now provide a rationale for the arguments included in X. The literature on university technology transfer (see Siegel and Phan (2005) for a review of these papers)) provides us with guidance on the arguments of equation (1). We conjecture that several project-level variables should be included as determinants of success. The first is the size of the project (AWARDSIZE), since larger awards are expected (ceteris paribus) to have greater commercial potential. The availability of additional funds for development of the project (ADDDEV) is also expected to increase the likelihood of success. We also include the age of the project (AGEPROJ), since older projects are more likely to be commercialized. Consistent with Jensen and Thursby (2001), we hypothesize that universityinvolvement in the SBIR project (UNIVPROJ) raises the probability of Phase II success. There are two reasons for this. The first is that inventor engagement is likely to enable the firm to overcome the technical hurdles associated with commercialization. A second reason was uncovered in the seminal papers by Lynne Zucker and Michael Darby and various collaborators, who explored the role of star scientists in the life sciences on the creation and location of new biotechnology firms in the U.S. and Japan. Zucker and Darby reported that ties between star scientists and firm scientists have a positive effect on research productivity, as well as other aspects of firm performance and rates of entry 9

10 in the U.S. biotechnology industry (Zucker, Darby, and Armstrong, 1998; Zucker, Darby, and Brewer, 1998). That is because university star scientists have a vast social network of colleagues at other universities, graduate students, post-docs, and former students in industry. This social network has been shown to be extremely useful in the commercialization of research. Another way to assess the impact of universities on successful commercialization is to directly determine whether the SBIR entrepreneurs have ties to these institutions. We construct two proxies for such connections: (1) the number of founders of a given SBIR firm who have an academic background (ACADFOUNDER) and (2) a dummy variable denoting whether the most recent employment of the founder was in academia (PRIORACAD). Several additional control variables that must be included in X. The first is a proxy for entrepreneurial experience, which we operationalize as the number of other companies started by the founder (ENTREPEXPER). Other control variables include the gender of the founder (GENDER), firm size (SIZE), and the number of previous SBIR Phase1 (PREVAWARD1) and SBIR Phase 2 awards (PREVAWARD2) Finally, we also include adjustments for response bias, which is always a concern with survey data. Using the dichotomous or truncated alternative measures of SUCCESS, we will employ the appropriate estimation procedure for each of the limited dependent variables: Tobit, Poisson, or Negative Binomial estimation. Tobit Regressions 10

11 For example, we will employ Tobit estimation for sales and employment-related indicators of success, given that these variables are non-negative. Following Foltz, Barham, Chavas, and Kim (2005), we will estimate a Tobit model, based on partial maximum likelihood estimation, which has optimal asymptotic properties. A useful aspect of this version of the Tobit model is that it does not require strict exogeneity of the independent variables (a rather heroic assumption in this context) and also allows for error terms that are serially correlated. The Tobit model was developed to accommodate a censored dependent variable, such as sales (or expected sales) and to address the bias associated with assuming a linear functional form in the presence of such censoring. A key assumption of this model is that an unobservable latent framework generates the data. The model incorporates this assumption into the modelling process. In the context of SBIR projects, the Tobit model can be expressed: (2) 2 SUCCESS = x β + u u ~ N(0, σ ) i=1.n *, it it ti it (3) SUCCESS it = SUCCESS if SUCCESS * it > 0 * it (4) SUCCESS = 0 otherwise * it where x it is a vector of independent variables relating to the i th SBIR project in year t, SUCCESS it are indicators of success associated with the i th SBIR project in year t and * SUCCESS it is an unobserved continuous latent variable assumed to determine the value of * SUCCESS it. Thus, for successful SBIR projects, the latent variable can only be observed if it is greater or equal to zero. Maximum likelihood estimation yields consistent parameter 11

13 where δ = 1/α and p = (1+α( exp f(x) )) 1. The Poisson distribution (and hence the property of no over-dispersion) corresponds to the special case of α = 0. For each negative binomial regression, we will compute the χ 2 statistic (with one degree of freedom) to test the null hypothesis that α = 0; that is, that the data are distributed as Poisson (conditional on X). IV. Empirical Results Descriptive statistics for the variables used in the Tobit and negative binomial regressions are presented in Table 1. As a first cut, we have analyzed data from a single agency, the Department of Defense. Recall that we seven indicators of success and therefore, seven dependent variables: (1) actual sales, (2) expected sales, (3) new employees, (4) patents applied for, (5) copyrights applied for, (6) trademarks applied for, and (7) licensing agreements consummated. Table 2 presents Tobit regression estimates of equation (1) the sales and employment indicators of success. Columns (2), (4), and (6) include firm fixed effects for each of the three dependent variables. The models appear to fit reasonably well and the findings are somewhat consistent with our expectations. Not surprisingly, we find that the age of the project (AGEPROJ), entrepreneurial experience of the founder (ENTREPEXPER), and the size of the award (AWARDSIZE) are positively related to actual and expected sales. Contrary to expectations, firm size (FIRMSIZE), additional development funding for the project (ADDDEV), and previous awards (PREVAWARD1 and PREVAWARD2) appear to be insignificantly related to success. We now focus our attention on the coefficients on the measures of universityinvolvement in the SBIR project. These variables are found to be positive and significantly related to actual and expected sales: the dummy variable for university 13

14 involvement in a given SBIR project (UNIVPROJ) and the dummy variable denoting whether the founder was recently employed in academia (PRIORACAD). We also observe a positive and significant relationship between the number of founders who have an academic background ((ACADFOUNDER) and the number of new jobs created as a result of the SBIR project (NEWEMP). Negative binomial regression estimates of the remaining indicators of success are presented in Table 3. Columns (2), (4), (6), and (8) include firm fixed effects for each of the three dependent variables. Once again, we find that the models appear to fit fairly well and the findings are somewhat consistent with our expectations, in the sense that larger awards and older projects are more likely to be successful. Most importantly, the indicators of interaction between the firm and the university (i.e., UNIVPROJ, PRIORACAD, and ACADFOUNDER) appear to be positively associated with successful commercialization, especially for patenting and licensing. The findings are weaker are for copyrights and trademarks. Note also that these findings are somewhat stronger when we include firm effects in the regression models. V. Caveats, Extensions, and Preliminary Conclusions Our empirical findings should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. The first is that we have only analyzed data from a single agency, the Department of Defense. In subsequent empirical work, we will analyze data from the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation. A second concern is that there is either a two-stage process, or perhaps a simultaneous process, underlying our statistical analysis. That is, it 14

15 could be that a faculty member (or other agent of the university) consciously chooses to establish a relationship with private companies that have the highest probability of commercialization. It is conceivable that we are not capturing a firm-level return to involvement with the university, but rather a selection process on the part of the university agent. We need to tease this out further in subsequent empirical work. Still, our empirical results suggest that universities may be adding value along this important dimension of technology transfer/commercialization. This is a spillover mechanism that deserves greater attention in the academic literature. In this study, the nature of the relationship between the startup and the university is measured somewhat crudely. It would be interesting to examine the connection between commercialization success and the closeness of the relationship between the SBIR firm and the university. For this, we need a direct measure of contact between these companies and academics and graduate students. The role of distance also needs to be explored. 15

Research Policy 34 (2005) 1076 1090 Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages Frank T. Rothaermel a,, Marie Thursby a,b a College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Private Equity and the Innovation Strategies of Entrepreneurial Firms: Empirical Evidence from the Small Business Innovation Research Program Albert N. Link* Department of Economics University of North

January 2006 Did Medicare Induce Pharmaceutical Innovation? Daron Acemoglu David Cutler Amy Finkelstein Joshua Linn Abstract The introduction of Medicare in 1965 was the single largest change in health

Research Policy 32 (2003) 209 227 Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Dante Di Gregorio a,b,, Scott Shane a,1 a Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, 3321

POSITION STATEMENT SMAL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH Adopted by the IEEE-USA Board of Directors, 18 Sept. 2014 The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and related Small Business Technology Transfer

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION HEARING CHARTER The Role of Small Business in Innovation and Job Creation: The SBIR and

Does the Small Business Innovation Research Program Foster New Company? Evidence from Taiwan 1 Feng-Wu Lee Chien-Wen Huang Pin-Yu Chu Institute of Public Affairs Management National Sun Yat-sen University

Technology Based Academic Entrepreneurship: How Little We Know Jon Carrick Stetson University Developing new innovations is at the core of what research universities do. While it is common knowledge that

ANNUITY LAPSE RATE MODELING: TOBIT OR NOT TOBIT? SAMUEL H. COX AND YIJIA LIN ABSTRACT. We devise an approach, using tobit models for modeling annuity lapse rates. The approach is based on data provided

FDI as a source of finance in imperfect capital markets Firm-Level Evidence from Argentina Paula Bustos CREI and Universitat Pompeu Fabra September 2007 Abstract In this paper I analyze the financing and

Entrepreneurial Teams, Optimal Team Size, and Founder Exits Mili Shrivastava Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada Abstract The extant literature on entrepreneurial teams has rarely examined the role of teamsize and

Patterns of Financing: A Comparison between White- and African-American Young Firms Fourth in a series of reports using data from the Kauffman Firm Survey February 2009 The Kauffman Firm Survey 2004 2005

The Chicago Handbook of University Technology Transfer and Academic Entrepreneurship C6544-Link-master.indb i 6/13/14 4:56:33 PM C6544-Link-master.indb ii 6/13/14 4:56:33 PM The Chicago Handbook of University

UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: PROCESS, DESIGN, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY i ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH Series Editor: Gary D. Libecap

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC SERVICES: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM DUTCH MUNICIPALITIES Hans de Groot (Innovation and Governance Studies, University of Twente, The Netherlands, h.degroot@utwente.nl)

Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT Ajay Agrawal Rebecca Henderson (Forthcoming in Management Science) August 9, 2001 Abstract In this paper we explore the degree to which

BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW WORKING PAPER SERIES, LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 06-13 A COMMENT ON DO PATENTS FACILITATE FINANCING IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY? JAMES E. BESSEN The Boston University

Regression analysis in practice with GRETL Prerequisites You will need the GNU econometrics software GRETL installed on your computer (http://gretl.sourceforge.net/), together with the sample files that

The Loss in Efficiency from Using Grouped Data to Estimate Coefficients of Group Level Variables Kathleen M. Lang* Boston College and Peter Gottschalk Boston College Abstract We derive the efficiency loss

93 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL LEARNING IN ECONOMICS Neil Terry, West Texas A&M University ABSTRACT This paper presents empirical results concerning the effectiveness of Internet instruction in economics.

Department of Economics On Testing for Diagonality of Large Dimensional Covariance Matrices George Kapetanios Working Paper No. 526 October 2004 ISSN 1473-0278 On Testing for Diagonality of Large Dimensional

Consequences of the Bayh-Dole Act 6.901 Final Paper Professor Robert Rhines December 12, 2005 David Levenson Levenson 1 Introduction The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 is arguably one of the most influential pieces

Joint Product Signals of Quality By James E. McClure and Lee C. Spector Ball State University Muncie, Indiana September 1991 Abstract In the absence of other information about the quality of an experience

MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Evaluation of Small Business Innovation Research Programs in Japan Hiroyasu Inoue and Eiichi Yamaguchi 24. February 2014 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53898/

Cointegration The VAR models discussed so fare are appropriate for modeling I(0) data, like asset returns or growth rates of macroeconomic time series. Economic theory, however, often implies equilibrium

UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP: FACULTY AND STUDENTS IN SPINOFFS August 2012 UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP: FACULTY AND STUDENTS IN SPINOFFS August 2012

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE Firm and Product Life Cycles and Firm Survival By RAJSHREE AGARWAL AND MICHAEL GORT* On average, roughly 5 10 percent of the firms in a given market leave that market over the span

Discussion Paper: 2009/04 The frequency of visiting a doctor: is the decision to go independent of the frequency? Hans van Ophem www.feb.uva.nl/ke/uva-econometrics Amsterdam School of Economics Department

Is the Forward Exchange Rate a Useful Indicator of the Future Exchange Rate? Emily Polito, Trinity College In the past two decades, there have been many empirical studies both in support of and opposing

Financial Capital Injections among New Black and White Business Ventures: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey Alicia M. Robb University of California, Santa Cruz Robert W. Fairlie University of California,

ABSTRACT The pricing of China Region ETFs - an empirical analysis Yao Zheng University of New Orleans Eric Osmer University of New Orleans Using a sample of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that focus on investing

The Role of Research Institutions in the Formation of the Biotech Cluster in Massachusetts Lita Nelsen Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, December 2005 The Massachusetts Biotech Cluster 2005

Chapter 4 Technological Progress and Economic Growth 4.1 Introduction Technical progress is defined as new, and better ways of doing things, and new techniques for using scarce resources more productively.

A KAUFFMAN RESEARCH SERIES IMPACT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION Alberta Charney Gary D. Libecap Alberta Charney is a researcher in the Economic and Business Research Program at the Eller College of Business

Do Supplemental Online Recorded Lectures Help Students Learn Microeconomics?* Jennjou Chen and Tsui-Fang Lin Abstract With the increasing popularity of information technology in higher education, it has

The Effect of Health Insurance Coverage on the Reported Health of Young Adults Eric Cardella Texas Tech University eric.cardella@ttu.edu Briggs Depew Louisiana State University bdepew@lsu.edu This Draft:

A peer-reviewed electronic journal. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Permission is granted to

LUCIO SARNO ELVIRA SOJLI The Feeble Link between Exchange Rates and Fundamentals: Can We Blame the Discount Factor? Recent research demonstrates that the well-documented feeble link between exchange rates

Sources of Funds and Investment Strategies of Venture Capital Funds: Evidence from Germany, Israel, Japan and the UK Colin Mayer Sa?d Business School, University of Oxford and CEPR colin.mayer@sbs.ox.ac.uk

107 INFLATION, INTEREST RATE, AND EXCHANGE RATE: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP? Maurice K. Shalishali, Columbus State University Johnny C. Ho, Columbus State University ABSTRACT A test of IFE (International

Mette Aagaard Knudsen, DTU Transport, mak@transport.dtu.dk ELASTICITY OF LONG DISTANCE TRAVELLING ABSTRACT With data from the Danish expenditure survey for 12 years 1996 through 2007, this study analyses

Chapter 4 Poisson Models for Count Data In this chapter we study log-linear models for count data under the assumption of a Poisson error structure. These models have many applications, not only to the